The War on Terrorism

The Mistaken Means of Social Change

http://www.etresoi.ch/Denis/socialchange5.html

There is a formula I often follow when I don’t know where to begin, and that is to start
with history. If you discover the history, you should be able to figure it out as you go
along. It was Will Durant who said, "Those who know nothing about history are doomed
forever to repeat it."

Are we doomed to repeat the mistakes of history in the war on terrorism? If we continue
to follow the path we are now taking, I’m afraid that we are. But to find out whether we
are repeating the mistakes of history, we need to go back in time. So, I invite you to join
me in my time machine. We are going to splash around in history for a while and look at
some great events and huge mistakes to see if there are parallels, any lessons to be
learned for today. I must warn you that it will seem we are lost in time. We are going to
go here and there, and then jump back further, and then forward in time, and we will be
examining issues that may make you wonder "What on earth has this to do with today."
But I can assure you, when we reach the end of our journey, you will see that everything
we cover has a direct relevance to today and, in particular, to the war on terrorism.

THE HIDDEN AGENDA OF TAX-EXEMPT FOUNDATIONS

Lets start our time machine. We turn the dial to the year 1954 and, suddenly, we find
ourselves in the plush offices of the Ford Foundation in New York. We see two men
seated at a large, Mahogany desk, and they are talking. They cannot see or hear us. These
men are Roland Gaither, who was the President of the Ford Foundation at that time, and
Mr. Norman Dodd. Mr. Dodd was the newly appointed chief investigator of what was
called the Congressional Committee to Investigate Tax Exempt Foundations. The Ford
Foundation was one of them, so he was there as part of his Congressional responsibilities.

So, back to our time machine. The year is 1954, and we hear Mr. Gaither say to Mr.
Dodd, "Would you be interested in knowing what we do here at the Ford Foundation?"
And, of course, Mr. Dodd says, "Yes! That’s exactly why I’m here. I would be very
interested, sir." Then, without any prodding at all, Gaither says, "Mr. Dodd, we operate in
response to directives, the substance of which is that we shall use our grant making power
to alter life in the United States so that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet
Union."

Dodd almost falls off of his chair when he hears that. Then he says to Gaither, "Well, sir,
you can do anything you please with your grant making powers, but don’t you think you
have an obligation to make a disclosure to the American people? You enjoy tax
exemption, which is an indirect way of saying you are subsidized by the taxpayer, so,
why don’t you tell the Congress and the American people what you just told me?" And
Gaither replies, "We would never dream of doing such a thing."

A STRATEGY TO CONTROL THE TEACHING OF HISTORY

There is much more to be learned from this conversation, but our time is limited, so let’s
move on. The question that logically arises is, "How would it be possible for people in
these prestigious organizations to even dream that they could alter life in the United
States so it could be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union?" What an absurd
thought that would be! The answer, however, is not absurd at all. To bring this about, all
that needs to be done is to alter the attitude of the American people to accept such a
move. How could that be done?

The answer to this second question was provided by another powerful and prestigious
tax-exempt foundation, the Carnegie Endowment Fund for International Peace. When
Dodd visited the President of that organization and began asking about their activities, the
President said, "Mr. Dodd, you have a lot of questions. It would be very tedious and time
consuming for us to answer those questions, so I have a counter proposal. Why don’t you
send a member of your staff to our facilities, and we will open our minute books from the
very first meeting of the Carnegie Fund, and your staff can go through them and copy
whatever you find there. Then you will know everything we are doing."

A gain, Mr. Dodd was totally amazed. He observed that the President was a young man at
the Carnegie Fund and assumed he had never actually read the minutes himself. So he
accepted without hesitation and sent a member of his staff to the Carnegie Endowment
facilities. Her name was Mrs. Catherine Casey who was, by the way, hostile to the
activity of the Congressional Committee. She was placed on the staff by political
opponents of the Committee to be a watchdog and a damper on the operation. Her
attitude was: "What could possibly be wrong with tax-exempt foundations? They do so
much good." So that was the view of Mrs. Casey when she went to the boardroom of the
Carnegie Foundation for International Peace. She took her Dictaphone machine (they
used magnetic belts in those days) and recorded, word for word, many of the key
passages from the minutes of this organization starting with the very first meeting. What
she found in those minutes was so shocking, Mr. Dodd said she almost lost her mind, and
she became very ineffective in her work after that.

Basically, this is what those minutes revealed: From the very beginning, the members of
the board discussed how to alter life in the United States, how to change the attitudes of
Americans to give up their cherished principles and concepts of government and be more
receptive to what we will call the collectivist model of society. I will talk more about
what the word collectivist means in a moment, but they used that word quite often. And
they discussed this in a very scholarly fashion. After many months of deliberation, they
came to the conclusion that, out all of the options available for altering the attitudes of
people in the United States, there was only one that was really dependable. That option
was > war. In times of war, they reasoned, only then would people be willing to give up
things they cherish in return for the desperate need and desire for security against a
deadly enemy. And so the Carnegie Endowment Fund for International > Peace declared
in its minutes that it must do whatever it can to manipulate the United States into war.

They also said there were other things needed, and these were their words: "We must
control education in the United States." They realized that was a pretty big order, so they
teamed up with the Rockefeller Foundation and the Guggenheim Foundation to pool their
financial resources to control education in America - in particular, to control the teaching
of history. They assigned those areas of responsibility that involved issues relating to
domestic affairs to the Rockefeller Foundation, and those issues related to international
affairs were taken on as the responsibility of the Carnegie Endowment. Their first goal
was to rewrite the history books, and they discussed how to do that at great length. They
approached some of the more prominent historians of the time and presented to them the
proposition that they rewrite history to favor the concept of collectivism, but they were
turned down flat. Then they decided - and these are their own words, "We must create
our own stable of historians."

They selected twenty candidates at the university level who were seeking doctorates in
American History. Then they went to the Guggenheim Foundation and said, "If we
provide the money, would you grant fellowships to candidates selected by us, who are of
the right frame of mind, those who see the value of collectivism as we do? Would you
grant them doctorates so we can then propel them into positions of prominence and
leadership in the academic world and in professional historical associations?" And the
answer was "Yes."

So they gathered a list of young men who were seeking their doctorate degrees. They
interviewed them, analyzed their thinking processes, and chose the twenty they thought
were best suited for their purpose. They sent them to London for a briefing. (In a moment
I will explain why London is so significant.) At this meeting, they were told what would
be expected if and when they win the doctorates they were seeking. They were told they
would have to view history, write history, and teach history from the perspective that
collectivism was a positive force in the world and was the wave of the future.

Now lets go back to the words of Mr. Dodd, himself. He said: "This group of twenty
historians eventually formed the nucleus of the American Historical Association. Then
toward the end of the 1920’s the Endowment grants to the American Historical
Association $400,000 [a huge amount of money in those days] for a study of history in a
manner that points to what this country can look forward to in the future. That culminates
in a seven-volume study, the last volume of which is a summary of the contents of the
other six. And the essence of the last volume is, the future of this country belongs to
collectivism, administered with characteristic American efficiency."

COLLECTIVISM VS INDIVIDUALISM

Now we must turn off our time machine for a moment and deal with this word
collectivism. You are going to hear it a lot. Especially if you delve into the historical
papers of the individuals and groups we are discussing, you will find them using the word
over and over. Although most people have only a vague concept of what collectivism is,
the advocates of collectivism have a very definite understanding of it, so let’s deal with
that now.

In order to appreciate the essence of collectivism, we need to step backward and look at
the larger picture encompassing the political ideologies that divide people in this age.
You find those who claim they are conservatives, and they will debate wildly with those
who think of themselves as liberals. Left-wingers disagree with right-wingers. You find
people who say they are Socialists or Communists or Fascists or whatever words they
choose to identify their point of view. But, when you ask them to explain what those
words mean, very few can agree. For the most part, they are merely labels without clear
or precise definitions.

Let’s put some meaning to them. I think that all of the great political issues, the
ideological issues at least, can be divided into two viewpoints. All of the rest is fluff.
Basically, a person is either a collectivist or an individualist. We are talking about
collectivism vs. individualism. What do these words mean?

First of all I should tell you that, from my observation, collectivists and individualist, for
the most part, are all good people. They want the best life possible for their families, for
their countrymen, and for the world - for mankind. They all want peace, prosperity, and
justice. They want freedom. Sometime they disagree over what the tradeoff should be for
freedom; but, still, they all want the good things for their fellow man. Where they
disagree is how to bring those things about.

THE DANGER OF GROUP SUPREMACY

The collectivist believes the group is the most important element of society; that all
solutions to problems are better solved at the group level than at the individual level; and
that, the larger the problem is, the larger the group should be to solve the problem. And
so they believe in collective action. They believe in organizing group activities to provide
for all of the advantages they want people to have. They want to protect people. They
want to make sure they don’t suffer, that they are well clothed and fed, and that they are
treated justly. The solution to all of these problems is a collective solution. "We shall do
it through group action." The more complex the problem, the larger the group should be,
until finally the most complex problems of all can be solved only by the largest groups of
all.

The collectivist sees government as the solution, because government is the ultimate
group, and so the collectivist mind can be easily recognized. It always has an affinity to
government as the solver of problems. The individualist, by the way, is more skeptical.
He tends to look at government as the creator of problems. But that’s another issue. We
will get to the individualist in a moment. The collectivist sees government as the solver of
problems; and, of course, the larger the unit of government, the better. Collectivist
solutions gravitate from local government to state government to national government
and finally to world government. If there is a really big problem, such as the
environmental issue involving the whole planet, the collectivist is convinced that it
cannot be solved except through the action of world government.

The collectivist believes that the group is more important than the individual and, if
necessary, the individual must be sacrificed for the group. Sometimes that is expressed in
terms of "the greater good for the greater number." It’s a very appealing concept.

The individualist on the other hand says, "Wait a minute. Group? What is group? That’s
just a word. You cannot touch a group. You cannot see a group. All you can touch and
see are individuals. They make up the group. But the real substance of the group is the
individual within it. It’s like a forest. Forest doesn’t exist. It’s a word concept. There are
only trees." So the individualist sees that, if you sacrifice the individual for the group,
you have made a huge mistake. The individual is the essence of the group. He is the core
of the group. The group has no claim to sacrifice its own essence.

Collectivists are often critics of religious and family values, because collectivism
demands unquestioning obedience to the state. Since loyalty to family or religious codes
often conflict with the concept of group supremacy, they cannot be tolerated in a
collectivist system.

THE ORIGIN OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Collectivists and individualists both agree that human rights are important, but they differ
drastically over what is the origin of those rights. There are only two possibilities in this
debate. Either man’s rights are intrinsic to his being, or they are extrinsic ; either he
possesses them at birth or they are given to him afterward. In other words, they are either
hardware or software. Individualists believe they are hardware. Collectivists believe they
are software.

The view of individualism was expressed clearly in the United States Declaration of
Independence, which said: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights,
Governments are instituted among men." Nothing could be more clear than that.
"Unalienable Rights" means they are the natural possession of each of us upon birth, not
granted by the state. The purpose of government is, not to grant rights, but to secure them
and protect them.

By contrast, all collectivist political systems embrace the view that rights are granted by
the state. That includes the Nazis, Fascists, and Communists. It is also a tenet of the
United Nations. Article Four of the UN Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural
Rights says: "The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, in the enjoyment
of those rights provided by the State … the State may subject such rights only to such
limitations as are determined by law."

The reason this is important is that, if we agree that the state has the power to grant rights,
then we must also agree it has the power to take them away. You cannot have one
without the other. Notice the wording of the UN Covenant. After proclaiming that rights
are provided by the state, it then says that those rights may be subject to limitations "as
are determined by law." In other words, the collectivists at the UN presume to grant us
our rights and, when they are ready to take them away, all they have to do is pass a law
authorizing it.

Compare that with the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution. It says Congress
shall pass no law restricting the rights of freedom of speech, or religion, peaceful
assembly, the right to bear arms, and so forth - not except as determined by law, but no
law. What a difference there is between individualism and collectivism.

REPUBLICS VS DEMOCRACIES

We are dealing here with one of the reasons people make a distinction between Republics
and Democracies. We have been taught to believe that a Democracy is the ideal form of
government. Supposedly, that is what was created by the American Constitution.
However, if you read the documents of the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution,
you find that they spoke very poorly of Democracy. They said in plain English that a
Democracy was one of the worst possible forms of government. And so they created
what they called a Republic. The bottom line is that the difference between a Democracy
and a Republic is the difference between collectivism and individualism.

In a pure Democracy, the concept is that the majority shall rule. That’s the end of the
discussion. You might say, "What’s wrong with that?" Well, there could be plenty wrong
with that. What about a lynch mob? There is only one person with a dissenting vote, and
he is the guy at the end of the rope.

Ah, wait a minute, you say. Maybe the majority should not always rule. How can we
protect the individual from the group? Maybe the group could become dangerous.
Perhaps we should put limits upon Democracy.

That is precisely what a Republic accomplishes. A Republic is simply a limited

Democracy - a Democracy with limits on what the group can do, with limits on what the
majority can do. Republics are characterized by written constitutions that say the
government - even though it represents the majority - shall not do this; the government
shall not do that; and it shall be prevented from doing that, also. We have individual
liberties and rights that stand higher and are more important than the group. And so we
begin to get a handle on the debate here, the issue, the cleavage between these two
concepts: collectivism on the one hand, individualism on the other.

COERCION VS FREEDOM

We come now to the next element of this debate, which is how to bring about desirable
group action. The collectivist says you have to force people. That’s why he has an
affinity to government. Government is the embodiment of legalized force. You can
always spot a collectivist because, when he confronts a problem, his first reaction is to
say, "There ought to be a law." His attitude is that we must force people to do what we
think they should do, because they are not as smart as we are - we collectivists. We’ve
been to school. We’ve read books. We participate in discussion groups. We are smarter
than most of those people out there. If we leave it up to them, they are going to make
terrible mistakes. So, it is up to us. We are the privileged, fortunate ones. We are the ones
who shall decide on behalf of society and we shall enforce our decisions by law so that
no one has any choice. That we should rule in this fashion is our obligation to mankind.

By contrast, individualists say, "We also think we are right and others are wrong, but we
don’t believe in forcing anyone to comply with our will because, if we grant that
principle, then others, representing larger groups than our own, can compel us to act as
they decree, and we will have lost our freedom.

The collectivist will say, "I think everyone should wear seatbelts. That just makes a lot of
sense. People can be hurt if they don’t wear seatbelts. So, let’s pass a law and require
everyone to wear them. If they don’t, we’ll put them in jail." The individualist says, "I
think everyone should wear seatbelts. People can be hurt in automobile accidents if they
don’t wear seat belts, but I don’t believe in forcing everyone to do so. I believe in
convincing them with logic and persuasion, if I can, but I also believe in freedom-of-
choice."

As an individualist, I am not opposed to collective action. Just because I believe in

freedom of choice does not mean I have to move my piano alone. It just means that I
renounce the right to compel someone to help me. Individualists seek cooperation based
on voluntary action, not compulsion.

And so here we have a second distinction between the collectivist and the individualist.
The collectivist believes in coercion. The individualist believes in freedom.

THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM

There is one more issue to cover before restarting out time machine, and it has to do with
the political spectrum. We often hear about right-wingers versus left-wingers, but what
do these terms really mean? For example, we are told that Communists and Socialists are
at the extreme Left, and the Nazis and Fascists are on the extreme Right. Here we have
two powerful ideological forces pitted against each other, and the impression is that,
somehow, they are opposites. But, what is the difference? They are not opposites at all.
They are the same. The insignias may be different, but when you analyze Communism
and Nazism, they both embody the principles of Socialism. Communists make no bones
about Socialism being their ideal, and the Nazi movement in Germany was actually
called the National Socialist Party. Communists believe in international Socialism,
whereas Nazis advocate national Socialism. Communists promote class hatred and class
conflict to motivate the loyalty and blind obedience of their followers, whereas the Nazis
use race conflict and race hatred to accomplish the same objective. Other than that, there
is absolutely no difference between Communism and Nazism. They are both the epitome
of collectivism, and yet we are told they are, supposedly, at opposite ends of the
spectrum!

There’s only one thing that makes sense in constructing a political spectrum and that is to
put zero government at one end of the line and 100% at the other. Now we have
something we can comprehend. Those who believe in zero government are the anarchists,
and those who believe in total government are the totalitarians. With that definition, we
find that Communism and Nazism are together at the same end. They are both totalitarian
concepts. Why? Because they are both based on the model of collectivism. Communism,
Nazism, Fascism and Socialism all gravitate toward bigger and bigger government,
because that is the logical extension of their common ideology. They cannot help
becoming what they are. More government is needed to solve bigger problems, and
bigger problems require more government. Once you get on the slippery slope of
collectivism, once you accept that ideology, there is no place to stop until you reach all
the way to the end of the scale, which is 100% government. Regardless of what name you
give it, regardless of how you re-label it to make it seem new or different, collectivism is
totalitarianism.

In truth, the straight-line concept of a political spectrum is somewhat misleading. It is

really a circle. You can take that straight line with 100% government at one end and zero
at the other, bend it around, and touch the ends at the top. Now it’s a circle because,
under anarchy, where there is no government, you have absolute rule by those with the
biggest fists and the most powerful weapons. So, you jump from zero government to
totalitarianism in a flash. They meet at the top. We are really dealing with a circle, and
the only logical place for us to be is somewhere in the middle. We need government, of
course, but, the concept of what kind of government must be built on individualism, an
ideology that pushes always toward that part of the spectrum that involves the least
government necessary to make things work instead of collectivism, which always pushes
toward the other end of the spectrum for the most amount of government to make things
work.

JOHN RUSKIN PROMOTES COLLECTIVISM AT OXFORD

We are finally ready to reactivate out time machine. From the minutes of the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace, we recall the curious words: "We must control
education in America." Who is this " we? " Who are the people who are going to control
education in America? To answer that question we must set the co-ordinates on our
machine once again, and we are now moving further back in time to the year 1870. We
find ourselves suddenly in England in an elegant classroom of Oxford University, and we
are listening to a lecture by a brilliant intellectual, John Ruskin.

Ruskin was a Professor of Fine Arts at Oxford. He was a genius. At first I was prepared
not to like him, because he was a total collectivist. I didn’t think I would like anything
about him. But, when I got his books and started to read the notes from his lectures, I had
to acknowledge his great talent. First of all he was an accomplished artist. He was an
architect. He was a philosopher. About his only flaw was that he believed in collectivism.
He preached it eloquently, and his students, coming from the wealthy class - the elite and
the privileged from the finest areas of London - were very receptive to his message. He
taught that those who had inherited the rich culture and the traditions of the British
Empire had an obligation to rule the world and make sure that all the less fortunate and
stupid people had proper direction. That was basically his message, but it was delivered
in a very convincing and appealing manner.

Ruskin was not the originator of collectivism. He was merely riding the crest of an
ideological tidal wave that was sweeping through the whole Western World at that time.
It was appealing to the sons and daughters of the super wealthy who were growing up
with guilt complexes because they had so much wealth and privilege in stark contrast to
the world’s poor and starving masses.

In this milieu there were two powerful ideological movements coming to birth. One of
them was Marxism, which offered the promise of defending and elevating these
downtrodden masses. Wealthy young people felt in their hearts that this promise was
worthy and noble. They wanted to do something to help these people, but they didn’t
want to give up their own privileges. I will say this about John Ruskin, he actually did
give of his own wealth to help the poor, but he was one of the rare ones. Most
collectivists are hesitant about giving their own money. They prefer to have government
be the solver of problems and to use tax revenues - other people’s money - to fund their
projects. Collectivists recognize that someone has to run this governmental machine, and
it might as well be them, especially since they are so well educated and wise. In this way,
they can retain both their privilege and their wealth. They can now be in control of
society without guilt. They can talk about what they are doing to lift up the downtrodden
masses using the collectivist model. It was for these reasons that many of the wealthy
idealists became Marxists and sought positions of influence in government.

THE FABIAN SOCIETY

Some of the more erudite of those from the wealthy, intellectual classes of England came
together and decided they would form an organization to perpetuate the concept of
collectivism. It was called the Fabian Society. It is now 1884, and we find ourselves
observing a group of these people, including Sydney and Beatrice Web (founders of the
London School of Economics), George Bernard Shaw, Arnold Toynbee, H.G. Wells, and
people of that high caliber. The Fabian Society exists today, and a lot of very prominent,
influential, and powerful people are members. Tony Blair, for example, England’s Prime
Minister, is a member.

H.G. Wells wrote a book to serve as a guide for Fabians and their friends showing how
collectivism can be embedded into society without arousing alarm or serious opposition.
It was called The Open Conspiracy, and the entire plan is spelled out in detail. He even
said that the old religions of the world should give way to the new religion of
collectivism. The new religion should be the state, he said, and the state should take
charge of all human activity with, of course, elitists such as himself in control.

As mentioned previously, there were two powerful ideological movements coming to

birth in this same period of history, and they had much in common. One of them was
Marxism, which eventually was physically planted onto Russian soil and manifested
itself as Communism. The other was Fabianism. Please note that Communism and
Fabianism are merely variants of collectivism. Their similarities are much greater than
their differences. That is why their participants often move from one group to the other
with ease - or may even be members of both groups at the same time. Communists and
Fabians are usually friendly with each other. They may disagree intensely over
procedural issues, but never over goals, because their mutual goal is collectivism.

Fabians say, "Let us come to power quietly so as not to alarm anyone. Let us penetrate
and capture control of the organs of society: the educational institutions, the media, the
labor unions, agencies of government. Let us penetrate into the power centers of society
and quietly guide it in the direction of collectivism. No one will realize what is
happening, and there will be very little opposition or bloodshed." Fabians consider
themselves to be humane. To emphasize this strategy of patient gradualism, they adopted
the tortoise as their symbol, and the emblem on their shield is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Communists, on the other hand, are less genteel. They are adept at using all the same
tactics of deception and quiet penetration into power centers as used by the Fabians, but
they are more inclined to rely on violence and terror to accelerate their progress. They
raise the clenched fist and say, "Let us come to power through revolution. Let us put
masses into the streets and overthrow the target government by force and violence. Let
the land be drenched with the blood of our enemies." Communists are in a hurry.
What is the debate. The only difference between Communists and Fabians is a question
of tactics. They may compete over which of them will dominant the coming New World
Order, over who will hold the highest positions in the pyramid of collectivist power; they
may even send opposing armies into battle to establish territorial pre-eminence over
portions of the globe, but they never quarrel over goals. Through it all, they are blood
brothers under the skin, and they will always unite against their common enemy, which is
any opposition to collectivism.

The Fabian tortoise and the wolf in sheep’s clothing are emblazoned on a stained glass
window that used to be in the Web house. The Webs donated their home to the Fabian
Society, and it is now the headquarters of that organization in Surrey, England. The
window was recently removed, but there are many photographs of it showing the symbols
in great detail. Perhaps the most significant part is written across the top. It is that famous
line from Omar Khayyam: "Dear love, couldst thou and I with fate conspire to grasp this
sorry scheme of things entire, would we not shatter it to bits and then remould it nearer to
the hearts desire?" Please allow me to repeat that line. This is the key to modern history,
and it is the key to the war on terrorism: "Dear love, couldst thou and I with fate conspire
to grasp this sorry scheme of things entire, would we not shatter it to bits and then
remould it nearer to the hearts desire?"

Elsewhere in the stained glass window there is a depiction of Sydney Webb and George
Bernard Shaw striking the earth with hammers. The earth is on an anvil, and they are
standing there striking the earth with hammers. "Shatter it to bits," That’s what they were
saying at the Carnegie Endowment Fund. That’s what they were saying at the Ford
Foundation. "War is the best way to remold society. War! Shatter society to bits. Break it
apart. Then we can remold it nearer to the heart’s desire. And what is our heart’s desire?
Collectivism."

THE STRATEGY TO GET THE U.S. INTO WAR

It is not surprising that there was a great deal of pressure from Wall Street to get the
United States into the war. Colonel House became the lead man for this group. He went
back and forth across the Atlantic and consulted with the Round Tables in both England
and America. He arranged a secret treaty on behalf of President Wilson to bring the
United States into the War. The reason for secrecy was that the Senate would never have
approved it. There was still strong opposition to war and, had it been revealed that
Wilson was engaging in a secret - and unconstitutional - treaty to get the U.S. into war, it
would have been politically disastrous to his Administration.

George Viereck, in his book, The Strangest Friendship in History - Woodrow Wilson and
Colonel House , said this: "Ten months before the election, which returned Wilson to the
White House because he 'kept us out of war,' Colonel House negotiated a secret
agreement with England and France on behalf of Wilson which pledged the United States
to intervene on behalf of the Allies. If an inkling of the conversation between Colonel
House and the leaders of England and France had reached the American people before
the election, it might have caused incalculable reverberations in public opinion."

How did they do it? How did these collectivists maneuver the United States into war? It
was not easy, and it came about only after extensive planning. The first plan was to offer
the United State as a negotiator between both sides of the conflict. They would position
the U.S. as the great peacemaker. But the goal was just the opposite of peace. They would
make an offer to both sides that they knew would not be acceptable to Germany. Then,
when the Germans rejected the offer, they would be portrayed in the press as the bad
guys, the ones who wanted to continue the war. This is how the plan was described by
Ambassador Page in his memoirs. He said: "Colonel House arrived … full of the idea of
American intervention. First his plan was that he and I and a group of the British cabinet
should at once work out a minimum program of peace which he assumed would be
unacceptable to the Germans, and that the President would take this program and present
it to both sides. The side that declined would be responsible for continuing the war. Of
course the fatal moral weakness of the foregoing scheme is that we should plunge into the
war, not on the merits of the cause, but by a carefully sprung trick."

AGGRAVATE, INSULATE, FACILITATE

The trick eventually evolved into something far more dramatic than deceptive peace
negotiations. It called for three strategies in one. They were: aggravate, insulate, and
facilitate.

The first stage was to aggravate the Germans into an attack, literally to goad them until
they had no choice but to strike back. Much of this was implemented from the British
side. For example, Churchill established the policy of ramming German submarines.
Prior to that, the code of warfare on the seas required that, if a submarine challenged an
unarmed merchant ship, it would fire a shot across its bow. The merchant ship would be
expected to stop its engines and it would be given time for the crew to get into lifeboats
before the submarine would sink the ship. It was a small humanitarian gesture in the
middle of warfare. That is the way it was done until Churchill, as Lord of the Admiralty,
ordered all merchant ships, regardless of circumstances, to steam full speed directly
toward the submarines and attempt to ram them and sink them. They actually succeeded
in doing that a few times. This eliminated the distinction between merchant ships and war
ships. Henceforth, all merchant ships had to be considered as war ships. Not surprisingly,
Germany quickly adopted the policy of no more warning shots.

When that happened, those seeking to involve the United States in the war had a heyday.
Editorializing through the British and American press, they said: "See how evil these
Germans are? They sink unarmed ships and don't even give the crews a chance to get off!
It is our moral duty to fight against such evil."

Churchill also ordered British ships to fly American flags so the Germans wouldn't know
if they were really British or American. He wanted German submarines to strike
American ships, even if by accident. It was his strategy to do whatever possible to bring
the United States into war on the side of Great Britain, and the sinking of an American
ship by Germany would have been an excellent way of doing so.

There was plenty of goading from the America side as well. The United States
government consistently violated its own neutrality laws by allowing war materials to be
sent to Britain and France. Munitions and all kinds of military-related supplies were
blatantly shipped on a regular basis. In fact, the Lusitania, on the day it was sunk, was
loaded with military arsenal. The Germans knew all along that this was going on. The
people in Washington knew it as well. By openly violating their own neutrality laws, they
were doing everything possible to aggravate Germany into an attack.

The second prong of the strategy was to insulate. That means to insulate the victims from
information that would have allowed them to protect themselves. You can't have a
successful surprise attack if you tell the victims in advance that they are likely to be
targeted. It was important not to let any of the Lusitania passengers know that the ship
was carrying war materials and was likely to be sunk. They could not be allowed to know
that several of its decks, normally assigned to passenger quarters, had been cleared out
and loaded with military-related supplies, including ammunition and explosive primers.
They could not be informed that they would be riding on a floating ammunition depot.
The German embassy tried to warn American civilians not to book passage on that ship.
They placed an advertisement in fifty newspapers, mostly along the eastern seaboard,
warning that the Lusitania would be in danger, that it was heading into hostile waters, and
that Americans should not be on board.

The U.S. State Department contacted all fifty of those newspapers and ordered them not
to publish the ad. They threatened that they would be in dire trouble with the government
if they did. There was only one newspaper, in Des Moines Iowa, that had the guts to go
ahead and run the ad anyway - which is why we know about it today. Unfortunately, an
ad in Des Moines was of small value to the people in New York who were actually
boarding the ship.

SINK THE LUSITANIA!

The third prong of the strategy was to facilitate. That means to make it easy for the
enemy to strike and be successful. On the morning of the sinking of the Lusitania,
Colonel House was in Britain and recorded in his diaries that he spoke with Sr. Edward
Gray and King George. They calmly discussed what they thought the reaction of the
American people would be if the Lusitania were to be "accidentally" sunk. This is what
Colonel House wrote: "I told Sir Gray if this were done, a flame of indignation would
sweep America which would in itself carry us into the war."

Four hours after that conversation, the Lusitania entered the war zone where German
submarines were known to be active. Designed and built by the British as a ship of war,
she had four boilers and was very fast and could outrun a submarine. That means she was
vulnerable only to subs that were ahead of her path, not those to the side or behind. This
greatly improved her chances for survival, especially with a military escort running
ahead. However, this was not to be her destiny. On this voyage she had been ordered to
turn off one of her boilers. She was running on three turbines instead of four. At only
75% speed, she was now vulnerable to attack from all sides.

The Juno was a British destroyer, which had been assigned to escort her through those
dangerous waters. At the last minute, the Juno was called back by the British Admiralty
and never made its rendezvous. Inevitably, the Lusitania, running at reduced speed, and
without protection, pulled into the periscope view of the U-20 German submarine. One
torpedo was fired directly mid center. There was a mighty explosion. As the Germans
were preparing for the second torpedo, much to their surprise, there was a second
explosion, and the whole bottom of the ship blew out. Exploration of the wreckage in
later years shows that it was an outward explosion. Something inside blew up with a
tremendous force, and the great ship sank in less than eighteen minutes.

The strategists finally had their cause. To the unknowing world, this was the dastardly
deed of those war-mongering Germans who were sinking passenger ships with innocent
American civilians on board. The flame of indignation was ignited and eventually it did
sweep America into war on April 16, 1917. Eight days later, Congress authorized $1
billion of taxpayer money to be sent to Britain and France to assist in the war effort. The
next day, the first $200 million was sent to Britain and immediately applied to the
Morgan debt. A few days later, $100 million was sent to France, and the same thing
happened. It was applied to the Morgan debt. By the end of the war, $9.5 billion had been
sent to the Allies and applied to the Morgan Debt. Add to that the infinitely higher cost of
American blood sacrificed on the alter of collectivism in a war supposedly to make the
world "safe for democracy," and you begin to see a different aspect of World War I than
has been popularized in orthodox history books - which, incidentally, have been written
and funded by collectivists.

WORLD WAR II

We are back in our time machine now and find ourselves at World War II. The parallels
with World War I are striking. Britain again was losing the war with Germany. The
president of the United States, again, was an internationalist surrounded by Fabians and
Leninists. The primary difference was that the center of gravity in the CFR was swinging
away from the Morgan group and toward the Rockefeller group. Other than that, things
were pretty much the same. Colonel House was still a presidential advisor, but his rooms
at the White House were now occupied by Harry Hopkins. Hopkins was not a collectivist
agent of the Fabians; he was a collectivist agent of the Soviets. The American people
were still opposed to war. However, once again there were secret arrangements at the
highest levels of government to maneuver the United States into war without the voters
suspecting it. The strategy was to get the Axis powers to strike first, all the while telling
and reassuring the American people that their leaders were opposed to war. It was almost
an exact repeat of the ploy used in World War I.

On October 30, 1941, in a campaign speech in Boston, FDR made this amazing
statement: "And while I am talking to you mothers and fathers, I will give you one more
assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again. Your boys
are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." FDR repeated that pledge many times, all
the while working behind the scenes to get the United States into war. FDR's
speechwriter at that time was Robert Sherwood, who later became a famous playwright.
On this topic, Sherwood said: "Unfortunately for my own conscience, I happened to be
one of those who urged him to go the limit on this, feeling as I did, that any risk of future
embarrassment was negligible as compared to the risk of losing the election."

As FDR was delivering this soothing message to the voters, the American and British
military staffs were meeting secretly in Washington D.C., working out the details of a
joint strategy. They planned, not only how to get the United States into the war, but how
to conduct the war afterward. The resulting agreement was called the ABC-1. It was
incorporated into a Navy war plan and given the code name Rainbow Number Five. We
now have a great deal of information on this plan although, at the time, it was highly
secret. The key for getting into the war was to maneuver the Axis powers to strike first to
make it look like the U.S. was an innocent victim. Their first hope was that Germany
would attack. If that did not work, the fallback plan was to involve Japan.

In an effort to provoke an attack from Germany, FDR sent U.S. Naval ships to escort
British convoys carrying war supplies, knowing that they would be targets for German
submarine attack. When Germany refused to take the bait, he ordered U.S. ships to
actually get into the middle of sea battles between British and German war ships. The
strategy was simple. If one walks into the middle of a barroom brawl, the chances of
getting slugged are pretty good.

On October 17, 1941, an American destroyer, the USS Kearny, rushed to assist a British
convoy near Iceland that was under attack by German submarines. It took a torpedo hit
and was badly damaged. Ten days later, FDR made this statement to the nation: "We
have wished to avoid shooting, but the shooting has started, and history has recorded who
has fired the first shot. In the long run, however, all that will matter is who fired the last
shot. America has been attacked. The U.S.S. Kearny is not just a Navy ship. She belongs
to every man, woman, and child in this nation…. Hitler's torpedo was directed at every
American."

When it was later revealed that the Kearny had aggressively sought combat, the public
lost interest, and FDR dropped the rhetoric. It was time to involve Japan.

MANEUVERING THE JAPANESE INTO FIRING THE FIRST SHOT

The Secretary of War at that time was Henry Stimson, a member of the CFR. In his
diaries he said: "In spite of the risk involved, however, in letting the Japanese fire the first
shot, we realized that, in order to have the full support of the American people, it was
desirable to make sure that the Japanese be the ones to do this so that there could be no
doubt in anyone's mind as to who were the aggressors…. The question was, how we
should maneuver them into firing the first shot without allowing too much damage to
ourselves. It was a difficult proposition."
How was this done? It was accomplished exactly as in World War I: aggravate, facilitate,
insulate. Aggravate the enemy into an attack. Facilitate his attack to make it easy with no
opposition. Insulate the victims from any knowledge that would allow them to escape
their fate.

For many years, the government denied any knowledge of the impending Japanese attack.
Gradually, however, the pieces of the puzzle began to bubble up out of the mire of
secrecy and, one by one, they have been assembled into a clear picture of the most
monstrous cover-up one can possibly imagine. The smoking gun was discovered in 1995.
Author Robert Stinnett found a memo in the Navy Archives written by Lt. Commander
Arthur McCollum, who was assigned to Naval Intelligence. The memo was dated
October 7, 1940. It was directed to two of FDR's top naval advisors: Captain Dudley
Knox and Capt. Walter Anderson, who was head of Naval Intelligence. This memo was
approved by both men and forwarded to FDR for action. The full text is now public
information, and a photo of it appears in Stinnett's book, Day of Deceit; The Truth about
FDR and Peal Harbor.

The McCollum memorandum contained an eight-point action plan to implement a two-

point strategy. The two points were: (1) Aggravate Japan into a military strike as a matter
of economic necessity and national honor on her part; (2) Facilitate the attack by not
interfering with Japan's preparations and by making the target as vulnerable as possible.
The memorandum concluded with this phrase: "If by these means Japan could be led to
commit an overt act of war, so much the better."

The necessity to insulate the victims from any foreknowledge of the attack was not
mentioned in this memorandum but it was not necessary to do so. Obviously, this plan
could not succeed if the targeted victims were warned in advance. So, once again, there
was the familiar strategy: aggravate, insulate, and facilitate.

Was Japan aggravated into an attack? Judge for yourself. The sale of critical goods from
the United States to Japan was suddenly embargoed; commerce was brought to a
standstill; Japan's access to oil from the Dutch East Indies was crippled by U.S.
diplomatic pressure on the Dutch government; the U.S. closed off the Panama Canal to
Japanese ships; and Japan's major assets in the United States were seized by the
government. In other words, the strategy advanced by Lt. Commander McCollum was
followed in every detail. There was a deliberate assault against Japan's economy and an
insult to her national honor. A military response was predictable. The only question was
when.

MAKING PEARL HARBOR AN EASY TARGET

Was Japan facilitated in the attack? There is massive evidence to support that conclusion,
but we have time here for only a few examples. A Japanese spy by the name of Tadashi
Morimura was sent to Pearl Harbor under the cover of a phony political assignment at the
Japanese embassy. The FBI knew that his real name was Takeo Yoshikawa and that he
had been trained as a military officer. He had no political experience, so they knew his
assignment to a political post was a cover. They photographed him as he came off the
ship. They tracked him everywhere he went. They bugged his telephone. They knew what
he was doing every minute of the day. Often he would take a car to the top of a hill
overlooking the harbor and photograph the location of ships. Then he would use a
clandestine radio to send coded messages to Japan giving the exact grid locations for all
the ships, the times of their movements, how many soldiers and sailors were on duty,
what time they reported, and what time they left the base. All of this information was
clearly of military importance and pointed to the possibility of a surprise attack. The FBI
wanted to arrest Yoshikawa and send him home, but the Office of Naval Intelligence
intervened, with White House approval, saying: Leave this guy alone. He is our
responsibility. We will handle it. J. Edgar Hoover, who was head of the FBI at that time,
objected strongly, and it almost erupted into a contest of inter-agency authority between
the FBI and Naval Intelligence. In the end, Naval Intelligence had its way, and
Yoshikawa was allowed to continue his mission without even knowing he was being
watched.

Only four days before the attack, U.S. Navy Intelligence intercepted this message from
Yoshikawa: "NO CHANGE OBSERVED BY AFTERNOON OF 2 DECEMBER. SO
FAR THEY DO NOT SEEM TO HAVE BEEN ALERTED. SHORE LEAVE AS
USUAL."

On December 6, just one day before the attack, this message was intercepted: "THERE
ARE NO BARRAGE BALLOONS AT THESE PLACES - AND CONSIDERABLE
OPPORTUNITY IS LEFT FOR A SURPRISE ATTACK."

It was bizarre. Here was an enemy agent gathering strategic information in preparation
for a surprise attack on American forces, and people at the highest levels of the United
States government were protecting him. They deliberately allowed the flow of
information to continue so the Japanese would be successful in their mission.

VACANT SEAS POLICY

Another example of facilitating the attack on Pearl Harbor is what was called the Vacant
Seas Policy. For many months, the Navy had known from what direction the Japanese
were likely to approach, what sea corridor they would use to launch their attack. They
even had conducted maneuvers simulating it themselves. One was called Exercise 191
and the other OPORD1. Because of weather patterns, sea currents, location of
commercial ship lanes, demand on fuel supplies, and other factors, they knew that the
Japanese would approach from the North Pacific Ocean in an operational area between
157 and 158 degrees west longitude. This presented a special challenge. If the crew of
any ship had seen a Japanese armada steaming toward Hawaii, they undoubtedly would
have used the radio to send word ahead. They would have said: "Hey, there is something
going on here. There is a fleet of aircraft carriers and destroyers heading your way." That,
of course, would have spoiled everything. Also, if the Japanese knew that their approach
had been detected, they would have lost the advantage of surprise and might have aborted
their plan.

American intelligence was well aware of every stage of Japanese preparations. It was
already known that Admiral Nagumo was outfitting his carrier strike force at Hitokappu
Bay on the Japanese island of Etorofu. His progress was monitored closely, and daily
reports were sent to Washington. His ships departed from Japan and headed for Pearl
Harbor on November 25. One hour later, Navy headquarters in Washington initiated the
Vacant Seas directive that all military and commercial ships must now stay out of the
North Pacific corridor. They were diverted hundreds of miles on a trans-Pacific route
through the Torres Straits so there would be no encounter that might alert the intended
victims or cause the Japanese to abort their mission.

The next stage in this strategy was to bring the ships of the 7th Fleet home from sea duty
and bottle them up inside Pearl Harbor where they could not maneuver or disperse. This,
of course, would make them easy targets. To accomplish this over the strong objection of
Admiral Kimmel, who was in charge of the Fleet, his superiors in Washington cut back
on deliveries of fuel. Without fuel, Kimmel had no choice. He had to curtail training
exercises at sea and bring two-thirds of his ships back into port. In his memoirs,
published in 1955, he said: "Shortly after I organized the Fleet in three major task forces,
I attempted to keep two of the three forces at sea and only one at Peal Harbor. I quickly
found that fuel deliveries were falling behind consumption. The reserves were being
depleted at a time when it was imperative to increase them. It was this fact, and this
alone, which made it necessary to have two task forces simultaneously in Pearl Harbor."
A Congressional investigation in 1946 revealed that, just a few days before the attack,
Navy headquarters in Washington ordered twenty-one of the most modern ships in the
7th Fleet to leave Pearl Harbor and deploy at Wake and Midway Islands. The aircraft
carriers, Lexington and Enterprise were among those ships. This not only left the
remaining Fleet with drastically reduced protection, it also meant that the ships anchored
in the harbor were primarily old relics from World War I, many of which were already
slated to be scrapped. As Secretary of War Stimson had stated in his diaries: "The
question was, how we should maneuver them into firing the first shot without allowing
too much damage to ourselves." Sacrificing only the old and marginally useful ships was
the solution to that problem.

Were the victims at Pear Harbor insulated from information that might have allowed
them to protect themselves? Could those thousands of Americans who lost their lives
been alerted in time to take defensive action? Or were they deliberately sacrificed on the
alter of collectivism because their deaths were needed to create the emotional drama to
justify going to war? The answer to this question is not a pleasant one.

INTERCEPTED CODED MESSAGES

Throughout this time, the Japanese were using a combination of military and diplomatic
codes. United States intelligence agencies had cracked all of them. For three months prior
to the allegedly surprise attack, they knew everything in minute detail. Yet, not one of
those messages was ever forwarded to the commanders at Pearl Harbor. In his memoirs,
Admiral Kimmel said: "At Pearl Harbor, General Short and I knew only a small part of
the political story behind the Japanese attack. Care was taken not to send us the
intercepted Japanese messages, which told in great detail each step in the Japanese
program…. For three months prior to the attack on the fleet a wealth of vital information
received in Washington was withheld from the commanders in Hawaii. The information
received during the ten days preceding the attack clearly pointed to the fleet at Pearl
Harbor as the Japanese objective, yet not one word of warning and none of this
information was given to the Hawaii commanders."

The most important intercept of the Japanese code was obtained on the night before the
attack. That message made clear even the exact hour that the strike would come. It was to
be 1:00 PM Pearl Harbor time. The intercept was decoded 6½ hours before that. It was
rushed to President Roosevelt and his top military advisors for immediate action. Their
response was to do absolutely nothing. They sat on it and deliberately let the clock run
out.

The military Chief of Staff at that time was General George Marshall, a member of the
Council on Foreign Relations. Marshall claimed that he was on horseback that morning,
riding in the park, and the reason he did not take immediate action was that he didn not
know about the intercept until he arrived at his office at 11:25 AM, Washington time.
However, even then he still had 1½ hours before the attack. He could have picked up the
telephone and spoken to the Hawaii commanders directly. He could have used any one of
several military radio systems designed for exactly such kinds of urgent communications,
but he did none of those things. According to witnesses, he read and re-read the intercept
and shuffled the paper from one side of his desk to the other while another half hour
ticked away. Then, at 11:52, he finally sent a warning to the commanders at Pearl Harbor.
The method? It was a commercial telegram sent through Western Union! It arrived six
hours after the attack!

THE WAR ON TERRORISM

Finally we come to the end of our journey through time and arrive at the present. Our
leaders today, as before, continue to advocate a world union of nations built on the model
of collectivism. As before, they seek to change the social and political structure of the
free world to accommodate that goal. And, once again, we find that we are engaged in a
war. This time, it is not against a particular nation. We are told it is a war on terrorism.
The burning question that now must be answered is this: Is the war on terrorism a repeat
of history? Is it merely a grand deception to intimidate and frighten us into accepting the
harsh realities of collectivism - and the continued loss of freedom - as a reasonable price
for safety in time of war? In other words, is it yet one more implementation of the Fabian
strategy to smash the world to bits in order to remold it nearer to the heart's desire?

Only time will answer that question. We are in the middle of the event, and the facts are
still pouring in. We know very little yet compared to what will be known in another few
years. In the meantime, each person must answer for himself based on his own level of
study and understanding. However, while evaluating the evidence, we need to consider
certain facts that are already established. One is that the key figures directing the war on
terrorism are members of the Round Table and the Council of Foreign Relations. They
are collectivists. They are dedicated to world government based on the model of
collectivism. Next, we need to consider that every move they make in this war results in
strengthening the power of the United Nations, which is the structure they hope will
become the seat of power for their heart's desire.

The strategy of aggravate, facilitate, and insulate is already clear. For several decades, the
United States has been confronted by a steady stream of new enemies. We tend to view
that record as a failure of foreign policy, but is it really? Perhaps it is not a failure at all.
Perhaps a plan is being implemented that is not readily apparent. Perhaps the plan is to
create and then aggravate enemies into an attack, to smash the old order of things, to
bring about war and destruction as a necessary step toward the creation of a new world
order. That, of course, is a preposterous assumption - just as preposterous as suggesting
that there were similar hidden agendas behind World Wars I and II.

Since 1945, the United States has had two powerful adversaries: Russia and China. Both
of them have been built and sustained by members of the Council on Foreign Relations
who dominate American government and business. In more recent times, the U.S. has
chosen sides with Israel against the Arab world, even to the extent of supplying military
equipment used against Palestinian civilians. Is anyone surprised that those people hate
America? At the time of the attack on September 11, the United States had a quarter-
million soldiers in 141 countries. Since the end of World War II, the U.S. has launched
attacks against Panama, Kosovo, Albania, Bosnia, Serbia, Iraq, Kuwait, Sudan, Haiti,
Granada, Afghanistan, and Somalia, supposedly in pursuit of stopping drugs, or
defending freedom, or pushing back Communism. In the great majority of cases these
objectives have not been achieved. The single most consistent result has been the
building of hostility toward America. These countries are the best enemies money can
buy.

Have terrorists been facilitated in their attacks? Since the end of World War II, under the
leadership of members of the Council on Foreign Relations, the United States has
terminated all of its internal-security agencies. Everything from the House Committee on
Un-American Activities, to the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, to the anti-
subversion agencies of local police departments; they have all been wiped away. We have
opened our boarders to security risks from around the world. People come in from
countries that we know are hostile to us, and we make it easy for them to do so.

OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING

I n the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, we know now that
there were at least four bombs and two teams at work. All we hear about in the media is
the one truck bomb detonated in the street; but, according to the testimony of Brigadier
General Benton Partin, a military explosive expert, there is no possibility that a fertilizer
bomb on the street could have brought that building down. There was a second
demolition team that apparently had security clearance to get into the building and was
able to strap high-impact explosives around the sustaining pillars, and that is what caused
the building to collapse. There was at least one more bomb that did not go off as planned,
and it was removed and de-fused by the local bomb squad. This was reported live on
Oklahoma City television stations as it happened, and it is fortunate that we have a video
copy of those reports because, after the FBI arrived on the scene and took charge of
media information, no more mention was ever made of the other bombs. Had this
additional bomb been detonated as planned, it is possible that the entire building would
have fallen, exactly as with the World Trade Towers several years later.

The FBI had undercover agents working inside many of the terrorist organizations and
knew almost everything they did or planned to do. Carol Howe was one of them. She had
posed as a loyal member of what was called W.A.R., the White Aryan Resistance, which
was a white supremacist organization linked to neo-Nazis and the KKK. Timothy
McVeigh, who was convicted and executed for his role in the bombing of the Murrah
Building, was a close friend of Andreas Strassmeir, who was one of the leaders of this
group. After the bombing, Miss. Howe testified that she had reported to her FBI superiors
that members of this group were planning to blow up federal buildings, including the one
in Oklahoma City. This did not fit with the FBI's story that it had no advance warning
about the Murrah Building, so the agency responded by claiming that Howe was not an
informant at the time she claimed to have made her reports and that she was emotionally
unstable. They called her "the poster girl" for "conspiracy theorists." Then they actually
charged her for committing such crimes as possession of an illegal explosive device and
conspiracy to make a bomb threat. In other words, they attempted to put her in prison for
doing exactly the things she was expected to do as an undercover agent. It was an
incredible betrayal. Fortunately she was able to prove to a jury that every one of her
claims was true and that it was the FBI that had lied on every count. Clearly, this was no
longer the same FBI that operated under J. Edgar Hoover during World War II.

TERROR FROM THE AIR

The terrorist cell that carried out the first bombing of the World Trade Towers on
February 26, 1993, was organized by Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman. During the 1980s,
Rahman had traveled throughout the Middle East calling for Jihad, or "Holy War,"
against the West. Consequently, he was on the State Department "watch list" of suspected
terrorists who were not to be allowed into the U.S. Yet, there he was, and he had entered
the country under his real name. How did that happen? It happened because, in July of
1990, the CIA intervened and gave him a visa. Then, when his visa was revoked four
months later, the Immigration Service located him and, instead of expelling him from the
country, granted him a work permit! That is how he was able to prepare and execute the
plan that led to the first bombing of the World Trade Towers. It was the same treatment
given to Takeo Yoshikawa at Pearl Harbor fifty-two years earlier.

On September 11, 2001, when the World Trade Towers again became the target of
terrorism - this time using hijacked airliners - the official position of the FBI was that the
government had no advance warning and that there was no way that the attack could have
been prevented. Unfortunately, the facts do not support that claim. For several years prior
to that, U.S. intelligence agencies were well appraised that Islamic extremists were
plotting attacks against American targets, especially the World Trade Towers and
government buildings in Washington, DC. It was well known that these groups were
planning to use hijacked passenger airliners to deliver the blows.

One of the earliest pieces of information on that came from the Philippines as far back as
1995. The police had arrested Abdul Hakim Murad when they discovered a bomb-
making factory in his Manila apartment. Investigation revealed that he was part of the
Osama bin Ladin terrorist network and closely associated with the same group that, six
years later, would hijack the planes that flew into the World Trade Towers. Murad
confessed that he and his friends were planning an operation called "Bonjinka," which
means "loud bang." Bonjinka was a plan to blow up as many as eleven airliners at the
same time and fly at least some of them into landmark targets such as the World Trade
Center, The TransAmerica Building in San Francisco, the Sears Tower in Chicago, and
various government buildings, such as the CIA headquarters and the Pentagon. They had
also planned to assassinate the Pope during his visit to Manila later that year. All of that
information was turned over to U.S. intelligence agencies and also to the security service
for the Vatican.

The FBI had been collecting evidence that international terrorists were attending flight
schools to learn how to fly jumbo jets since at least 1995 Much of this had come from
foreign governments and from professional analysis by terrorism experts. However, by
2001, the information was far more specific. It involved names, dates, and actual places.
For example, two months before the fateful attack against the Twin Towers and the
Pentagon, Kenneth Williams, who was a counter-terrorism agent in the Phoenix office of
the FBI, requested permission from his superiors to canvass all flight schools in the U.S.
to see if any of their students fit the profile of potential terrorists. His memo was
approved by his supervisor and forwarded to FBI headquarters for action. Williams
included with his memo an update of his investigation of eight Arabs who then were
taking flight training at the Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Prescott, Arizona.
Williams reported that one of those students had a picture of bin Ladin on his wall, while
another had been in telephone contact with a known al-Qaeda supporter. In view of the
flood of information about terrorists planning to use planes as bombs, Williams felt that
his request was a prudent and relatively simple precaution. Incredibly, the request was
turned down. The stated reason was that the Bureau did not have enough resources to
implement it.

THE UNTOUCHABLES

Here is another example. On August 13 of 2001 - just four weeks before the attack on 9-
11, the Pan Am International Flight Academy, located in Eagan, Minnesota, called the
FBI to report that one of its students was acting suspiciously. They said that Zacarias
Moussaoui claimed to be from France but, when French was spoken to him, it was clear
he did not know the language. He had requested Boeing-747 flight simulator training but
only wanted to know how to steer the plane, not how to take off or land. He also had
asked how much fuel was on board a jumbo jet and how much damage that would do if it
hit anything. It was quickly determined that Moussaoui was in the country illegally, so
the next day he was arrested and held for deportation.So far so good, but that is where the
matter stopped. When FBI agents of the local counter-terrorism team requested
permission to investigate Moussaoui's activities, their request was denied from
Washington. They were also denied permission to search his computer or even his
apartment. Had that been done, the agents would have discovered that he was in close
contact with the terrorists who participated in the 9-11 massacre three weeks later. The
chances of thwarting the plan would have been excellent.

A ccording to the January 27 issue of the Washington Post, when Moussaoui was
arrested, the FBI already had a five-inch thick file on him. Much of that probably came
from the French government, but that means they already knew everything about him,
what his intentions were, and who his friends were. In other words, they already had the
information they needed to deport him but chose not to do so until they were forced into
it by the fact that the flight school had reported his bizarre behavior.

Moussaoui was not the only terrorist at that flight school. Another was Hani Hanjour,
who became one of the hijackers on September 11. Officials at the school had raised
questions about Hanjour's inability to speak English, the international language of
aviation. When they shared this concern with the Federal Aviation Agency, instead of
disqualifying Hanjour from further training, the FAA sent a representative to sit in on a
class to observe him and then requested school officials to find an Arabic-speaking
translator to help him with his English.

The refusal of FBI headquarters to allow local counter-terrorism agents to do their job at
first baffled them and, eventually, drove them to desperation. One of them even put her
career on the line by publicly blowing the whistle on her superiors. On May 21, 2002,
Coleen Rowley, a Special Agent at the Minneapolis office, sent a scathing letter to the
Director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, accusing him and others at FBI headquarters of
gross negligence and deceit in handling the war on terrorism. In the single-spaced,
thirteen-page letter, which was released to the public a few days later, she said: "The
issues are fundamentally ones of INTEGRITY and go to the heart of the FBI's law
enforcement mission and mandate." She said that her application for a warrant to search
Moussaoui's computer had been deliberately altered by her superior in Washington so it
would not pass the necessary legal review. She said that headquarters "continued to
almost inexplicably throw up roadblocks and … brought up almost ridiculous questions
in their apparent effort to undermine" her efforts to obtain a search warrant. She also
pointed out that, after the 9-11 attack, the same FBI supervisor who was most responsible
for stopping the investigation was actually promoted to a job with more responsibility.

After all this struggle on the part of local FBI agents to be allowed to investigate known
and suspected terrorists in flight schools, and after continuing efforts by FBI headquarters
to prevent any such investigation, FBI Director Robert Mueller faced the press on
September 15, 2002, and, with a straight face, said this: "The fact that there were a
number of individuals that happened to have received training at flight schools here is
news, quite obviously. If we had understood that to be the case, we would have - perhaps
one could have averted this."

HARD QUESTIONS

Why did the FBI not act to prevent the bombing of the Murrah Building when it had prior
information that it was being planned? Why would it betray its own agent in order to
deny that such information existed? Why would the CIA make it possible for terrorists to
operate freely on American soil? Why would the FBI prevent its own agents from
investigating known and suspected terrorists at U.S. flight schools? None of this makes
any sense unless we understand the strategy of facilitating an enemy, unless we recognize
the role of war in the building of that heart's desire called collectivism, unless we
understand that horrendous acts of terrorism are Fabian hammer blows to society that
soften the public mind to meekly accept the expansion of government power supposedly
for our protection and safety.

There are many who cannot bear the burden of this knowledge. They will prefer the
reassuring analysis offered by the CFR-dominated media. They will dismiss all of this as
conspiracy theory and claim that none of it is proof.

In one sense, they will be right. There is no such thing as absolute proof. There is only
evidence. Proof may be defined as sufficient evidence to convince the observer that a
particular hypothesis is true. The same evidence that is sufficient to convince one person
may be insufficient for another. The case may be proved to the first but not to the second
who still needs more evidence. The purpose of this presentation has been to introduce at
least some of the evidence, hopefully enough to convince you that it is worthy of further
examination.

Having doubts about evidence reminds me of a story about a man who was worried that
his wife was unfaithful. He told his friend about it and said, "I have doubts, doubts,
always doubts." His friend said, "Why do you have doubts?" He replied, "Well, every day
she gets all dressed up, puts on perfume, leaves the house about noon and does not get
back until five or sometimes six, and I do not know where she goes. I just can not help
having doubts, doubts, always doubts." His friend said, "Why don't you put an end to
your doubts? Why don't you follow her to see where she goes?" The husband thought
about that for a moment and said, "OK, I will do it." So the next day he and his friend got
together in the friend&'s car and waited down the street at the end of the block. Sure
enough, at about a quarter of twelve, his wife came out of the house, all gussied up, got in
her car and headed into town. They followed her at a discreet distance to a quaint
restaurant. As she entered, she was greeted at the door by a handsome young man. They
embraced affectionately and then went inside, hand-in-hand. The husband and his friend
peered through the window of the restaurant and observed that the couple was laughing
and drinking Champaign and holding hands across the table. When it was time to leave,
the two men jumped back into their car and observed from a distance. The wife got into
the handsome young man's car and, of course, the husband and his friend followed.
Eventually, the couple pulled into a motel and checked into a room, and the two men hid
in the bushes just outside. As they were looking through the window of the room, they
saw the couple tenderly embrace for a long moment. Next, the woman loosened the
young man's tie. Then she walked over to the window and closed the drapes. Whereupon
the husband turned to his friend and said, "There you see? Doubts! Doubts! Always
doubts!"

ENTER THE REALITY ZONE

It is time now to enter the reality zone. It is time to put doubt and denial behind us.
Behold the grand deception. The war on terrorism is a war on freedom. It is the final
thrust to push what is left of the free world into global government based on the model of
collectivism. Its purpose is to frighten us into abandoning our freedoms and traditions in
exchange for protection from a hated and dangerous enemy. This ploy has been used two
times before. Each time it moved us closer to the final goal, but was not sufficient to
achieve it in full. This time it is expected to be the final blow.

We have allowed this to happen because we have been denied the knowledge of our own
history, and so it seems that we are doomed to repeat it. But all that can be changed. In
the twilight zone from which we have emerged, it is said that knowledge is power. But in
the reality zone, we know that is a myth. Men with great knowledge are easily enslaved if
they do nothing to defend their freedom. Knowledge by itself is not power, but it holds
the potential for power if we have the courage to use it as such, and therein lies our hope
for the future. If we act upon this knowledge, it is an opportunity, not just to know about
history, but actually to change its course.

"In the end more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. When the Athenians
finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom
they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."
--Edward Gibbons, From "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
”

“Remember when it was give me freedom or give me death? Now it is save me from
death and take my freedom, please.”
--Shoeless J. Traveler